program assessment plan and effectiveness data · several students had point deductions on question...

1

Program Assessment Plan and Effectiveness Data

Doña Ana Community College Radiologic Technology Program

2015-2016 Glossary: CR-Central Ray SID- Source to Image Distance IR- Image Receptor RIS- Radiology Information System PACS- Picture Archiving Communication System ASRT- American Society of Radiologic Technologist

For purposes of defining the program’s timeline throughout this document, the following defines first year versus second year students:

The Radiologic Technology Program consists of 5 consecutive semesters beginning in the fall of each academic year. A student is considered a first year student for semesters one and two. A student is considered a second year student for semesters three, four and five.

Likert scales for first year students are scored out of 4 points

Likert scales for second year students and graduates are scored out of 5 points

Revised 6/10/15, 6/15/15, 6/24/15, 6/25/15, 1/19/16, 3/24/16, 6/21/16, 6/24/16, 7/13/16, 7/18/16, 7/20/16-Final.

Table of Contents Outcomes Assessment Plan .......................................................................................... 3

Goal 1: Students will be clinically competent .......................................................... 3

Student Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate safe operation of radiographic equipment to produce quality diagnostic radiographic images ... 3

First-Year Students ....................................................................................................... 3

Student Learning Outcome 2: Students will be able to appropriately position patients, identify radiographic anatomy and pathological conditions. ................................................................................................................. 6

First-Year Students ................................................................................................... 6

Second-Year Students .................................................................................................. 7

Goal 2: Students will communicate effectively ........................................................ 7

Student Learning Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate appropriate and effective communication skills ................................................................................... 7

First-Year Students ....................................................................................................... 7

Second-Year Students .................................................................................................. 8

2

Student Learning Outcome 4: Students will accurately document/record data in accordance with clinical site policies and procedures ....................................... 9

Second-Year Students, Third Semester ..................................................................... 9

Second-Year Students, Fifth Semester .................................................................... 10

Goal 3: Students will use critical thinking and problem solving skills ............ 11

Student Learning Outcome 5: Students will demonstrate the ability to make decisions and use independent judgment .............................................................. 11

Second-Year Students ................................................................................................ 11

Second-Year Students, Fifth Semester .................................................................... 12

Student Learning Outcome 6: Students will analyze radiographic images for technical and positioning accuracy and to make modifications as needed ...... 13

First-Year Students ..................................................................................................... 13

Goal 4: Students will model professionalism ......................................................... 16

Student Learning Outcome 7: Students will conduct themselves in an ethical and professional manner and to function effectively as a member of the healthcare team in accordance with ARRT Standards and ASRT Code of Ethics....................................................................................................................................... 16


Student Learning Outcome 8: Students will practice professionalism by attending professional development opportunities, joining professional organizations and/or reading professional journals ............................................ 17


Program Effectiveness Measures and Data .............................................................. 18

Measure 1: Students will pass the ARRT national certification on the 1st attempt ......................................................................................................................... 18

Measure 2: Students pursuing employment will be gainfully employed within 6 months of graduation ............................................................................................. 19

Measure 3: Students will complete the program within 21 months ................... 20

Measure 4: Students will be satisfied with their education ................................. 22

Measure 5: Employers will be satisfied with the graduate’s performance ....... 24

Possible Program Research Questions/answers for 2015-2016 .............................. 26

3

Outcomes Assessment Plan

Goal 1: Students will be clinically competent Student Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate safe operation of radiographic equipment to produce quality diagnostic radiographic images

First-Year Students

Course and Timeframe RADT 101 (first year of program, first semester, after first lab exam) RADT 102 (first year of program, second semester, after third lab exam)

Person/s responsible Lead Instructor and Lab Instructor

Evaluation Instrument Laboratory Evaluation Positioning Exam rubric -- three simulations per student

o Question 3 Select the correct SID o Question 4 Select the correct tube angle and direction o Question 5 Set correct technical factors o Question 7 Center the CR to the IR/Bucky

Benchmark Target Year One and Two- RADT 101-The class will have 80% or better on the four questions averaged together Year One and Two- RADT 102-The class will have an 85% or better on the four questions averaged together Year Three- RADT 101-The class will have 92% or better on the four questions averaged together Year Three- RADT 102-The class will have 95% or better on the four questions averaged together

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change

Year One 2014-2015: Note: In year one we only assessed RADT 102. We added RADT 101 to be assessed in year two to look for improvement from semester 1 to semester 2. RADT 102: Question 3- 93.75% Question 4- 100% Question 5- 100% Question 7- 81.25%

4

RADT 102: Average of all four questions: 93.75% Benchmark target exceeded. NOTE: The data presented above was calculated from corrected grading rubrics (see Year One action plan for explanation). Year Two 2015-2016: Note: We assessed both RADT 101 and RADT 102 this year to look for improvement from semester 1 to semester 2.

RADT 101: Question 3- 98.6% Question 4- 100% Question 5- 97% Question 7- 96.1% Average of all four questions: 97.925% Benchmark exceeded. Program strength is 100% score on selecting correct tube angle and direction (question 4). Area to improve on is remembering to line up the x-ray CR with the bucky tray (question 7). Interesting finding is that during year one (2014-15), the second semester students also scored lowest on question 7 (81.25%). Also noted is that the rubrics were being graded correctly during the fall of 2015, which is another program improvement.

RADT 102:

Question 3- 100 % Question 4- 100% Question 5- 100% Question 7- 100%

Average of all four questions: 100% Benchmark exceeded. Improvement was made from semester 1 to semester 2. The quality of our lab instructors is a program strength. An interesting find was that several students had point deductions on question 6, which deals with positioning and question 8 which deal with marker placement. The program should consider changing the questions that are assessed for this measure in the future.

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: No action plan is needed at this time, however, an incidental finding was that the lab instructors are not using the rubric correctly when grading. To fix this, the lead instructor will have a meeting with all lab instructors at the beginning of each semester to explain the rubric and grading for lab exams. NOTE: The data presented above was calculated from the corrected grading rubrics.

5

Year Two 2015-2016: Continue to follow up. Let lab instructors know that one of the areas students struggle on is Center the CR to the IR/Bucky. Have instructors continue to emphasize this from the beginning of the semester. Since the students seem to be doing well with this assessment we will raise the benchmark for RADT 101 from 80% to 92% and then RADT 102 from 85% to 95% for year three and change the questions for the next assessment cycle.

Second-Year Students

Course and Timeframe RADT 201,202, & 203 (These courses consist of the entire second year of the program: third, fourth and fifth semesters. The competencies being evaluated (spine, skull or fluoroscopy) can be completed by the student in any of the three semesters. The data will be collected at the end of the fifth semester of the program).

Person/s responsible Clinical Instructors and Clinical Coordinator

Evaluation Instrument Online Rad School Clinical Competency Exam: Three competencies per student of a spine, skull, and fluoroscopic procedure

o Question 17 Selects appropriate technical factors, mAs, kVp

Benchmark Target 90% or higher

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 94% Benchmark target exceeded Year Two 2015-2016: 98%

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program will continue to monitor. Raise Benchmark from 90 to 95% Year Two 2015-2016: The program will continue to monitor. New benchmark (95%) was exceeded.

6

Student Learning Outcome 2: Students will be able to appropriately position

patients, identify radiographic anatomy and pathological conditions.

First-Year Students Course and Timeframe

RADT 101 (first year of program, end of first semester) RADT 102 (first year of program, end of second semester)

Person/s responsible Instructor

Evaluation Instrument Quizzes from RADT 101, and then given again in RADT 102 as formative assessments

Benchmark Target RADT 101 quizzes: 80% RADT 102 quizzes: 85%

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: RADT 101 quizzes: 84.70% RADT 102 quizzes: 85.414% The benchmark targets were met. Year Two 2015-2016: RADT 101 quizzes: 80.01% RADT 102 quizzes: 88.5% Benchmark for RADT 101 was met, which is a program strength. Benchmark for RADT 102 was met, which is a program strength.

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: Short reviews covering the material in RADT 101 will be presented in class during RADT 102 (second semester) as a refresher, possibly as a group assignment, other collaborative projects, or iClicker exercises. Year Two 2015-2016: The program has made some changes in our clinic scheduling and lab curriculum for year three, which may help raise these scores in RADT 101. Students will be performing evals and comps for year three for RADT 102 during clinic hours, which should help boost these scores as the students will have to actively use this knowledge.

7


Course and Timeframe RADT 201,202, & 203 (These courses consist of the entire second year of the program: third, fourth and fifth semesters. The competencies being evaluated (spine, skull or fluoroscopy) could be completed by the student in any of the three semesters. The data will be collected at the end of the fifth semester of the program).


Evaluation Instrument Online Rad School Clinical Competency Exam -- Three competencies per student of a spine, skull, and fluoroscopic procedure as a summative assessment.

o Question 28 Identify pertinent anatomy o Question 31 Identify any artifacts and/or obvious pathology


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 100%

Benchmark Target Exceeded. Year Two 2015-2016:

100% Benchmark Target Exceeded.

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The Program will continue to monitor. The students received a 100% on the assessment the first year. Reevaluate to create a new assessment after year two. Year Two 2015-2016: Continue to monitor for year three and consider new assessment tool next cycle.

Goal 2: Students will communicate effectively Student Learning Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate appropriate and effective communication skills First-Year Students

Course and Timeframe RADT 102 (first year of program, end of second semester)

8

Person/s responsible Clinical Instructors and RADT 102 Instructor

Evaluation Instrument Clinical Evaluation Survey

o Question 6 Student interacts well with the staff o Question 7 Student communicates/interacts well with the patients

Benchmark Target Year One- 3.0 or higher out of a 4 point Likert scale (See Glossary) Year two and three- 3.75 or higher out of a 4 point Likert scale

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: Question 6- 3.76 Question 7- 3.75

Benchmark Target Exceeded. Year Two 2015-2016: Question 6- 3.75 Question 7- 3.70 Benchmark Target met for question 6, not met for question 7. Results are lower than year one.

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program will continue to monitor. Raise benchmark from 3.0 to 3.75 for 2nd year. Year Two 2015-2016: Some comments made on the student evaluations with the lower scores indicated that some students were quiet in general or didn’t communicate with the patients at all. To address this the program has made changes to our clinic curriculum for semester one and two to include hands on patient care instead of observation only. We hope this will make students more confident in clinic and improve their communication skills with staff and patients. We will re-evaluate this in year three to look for improvement.


Course and Timeframe RADT 203 (second year of program, end of fifth semester)


Evaluation Instrument

9

Clinical Bimonthly Evaluation Survey (average of both surveys) o Question on effective communication: The student demonstrates

appropriate communication with patients, supervisors, peers and other employees.

Benchmark Target 4.0 or higher on a 5 point Likert scale (See Glossary)

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 4.6 Benchmark Target Exceeded Year Two 2015-2016: 4.65 Benchmark Target Met

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program will continue to monitor. Year Two 2015-2016: Need to increase the number of CI’s participating and number for evaluations performed. Only 9 out of the 16 students were evaluated. The clinical instructors were notified by phone but still did not complete. It seems clinical instructors are more likely to evaluate students at the beginning of their clinical rotations but then when getting ready to graduate they do not. To address this continuing problem, the clinic coordinator will make changes to the procedures. Students will be held responsible for getting the evaluations done within one week from being assigned to the Clinic Instructor or their grade will be affected. The program will keep using www.onlineradschool.com for year three (2016-17) but may decide to change back to paper evaluations depending on the results of this assessment change.

Student Learning Outcome 4: Students will accurately document/record data in accordance with clinical site policies and procedures Second-Year Students, Third Semester

Course and Timeframe Second year of RADT Program, Third Semester


Evaluation Instrument Clinical Bimonthly Evaluation Survey (average of both surveys) as a formative assessment

10

o Question 15 Effective Communication: Student documents and records data needed on patient charts, x-ray requisitions, RIS and PACS


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 4.4 Benchmark Target Exceeded Year Two 2015-2016:

4.1 Benchmark Target Exceeded

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program received input from Clinical Instructors at each site with the exception of one [Carlsbad] for the summer of 2014. Note: the program lost two Clinical Instructors at Carlsbad [they left for better employment opportunities]. We now have a replacement Clinical Instructor. Year Two 2015-2016: Continue to monitor.

Second-Year Students, Fifth Semester

Course and Timeframe Second year of RADT Program, fifth semester


Evaluation Instrument Clinical Bimonthly Evaluation Survey as a summative assessment

o Question 15 Effective Communication: Student documents and records data needed on patient charts, x-ray requisitions, RIS and PACS


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 4.5 Benchmark Target Exceeded

Year Two 2015-2016:

4.65

11

Benchmark Target Exceeded

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program is missing results from three clinical sites. The importance of providing feedback via the Bi-Monthly Evaluation Survey will be stressed to the clinical sites. Year Two 2015-2016: Continue to monitor. Possibly look for additional assessment tool. To address the continuing problem of missing results, the clinic coordinator will make changes to the procedures. Students will be held responsible for getting the evaluations done within one week from being assigned to the Clinic Instructor or their grade will be affected. The program will keep using www.onlineradschool.com for year three (2016-17) but may decide to change back to paper evaluations depending on the results of this assessment change.

Goal 3: Students will use critical thinking and problem solving skills

Student Learning Outcome 5: Students will demonstrate the ability to make decisions and use independent judgment Second-Year Students

Course and Timeframe RADT 202, and 203 These courses consist of the second year of the program: fourth and fifth semesters. The competencies being evaluated (trauma upper and lower extremities) could be completed by the student in either of the semesters. The data will be collected at the end of the fifth semester of the program.


Evaluation Instrument Trauma Upper and Lower Extremity Clinical Competency

Benchmark Target Year One- 90% or higher Year Two and Three- 95% or higher

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: Trauma Upper Extremity Competency: 98.8% Benchmark Target Exceeded Trauma Lower Extremity Competency: 99.7% Benchmark Target Exceeded

Year Two 2015-2016: Trauma Upper Extremity Competency: 99.3% Benchmark Target Exceeded

12

Trauma Lower Extremity Competency: 99.6% Benchmark Target Exceeded

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The Program will continue to monitor. Raise benchmark from 90 to 95%. Year Two 2015-2016: The benchmark was raised to 95% or higher. The benchmark still was exceeded.

Second-Year Students, Fifth Semester

Course and Timeframe RADT 203 (end of fifth semester)


Evaluation Instrument Clinical Bimonthly Evaluation Survey

o Question 1 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: Student demonstrates the ability to make decisions and use independent judgment

Benchmark Target 4.0 or higher out of a 5 point Likert scale (See Glossary)

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 4.2 Benchmark Target Exceeded

Year Two 2015-2016: 4.5

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program is missing results from three clinical sites. The importance of providing feedback via the Bi-Monthly Evaluation Survey will be stressed to the clinical sites. Year Two 2015-2016: The Response Rate continues to be low. The clinical instructor that had not filled out surveys were called by the clinical coordinator and asked to. There still was little response. We will continue to stress importance and remind during out advisory/ clinical instructor meeting. To address this continuing problem of low response rates, the clinic coordinator will make changes to the procedures. Students will be held responsible for getting the evaluations done within one week from being assigned to the Clinic Instructor or their grade will be affected. The program will keep using www.onlineradschool.com for year three (2016-17) but may decide

13

to change back to paper evaluations depending on the results of this assessment change.

Student Learning Outcome 6: Students will analyze radiographic images for technical and positioning accuracy and to make modifications as needed First-Year Students

Course and Timeframe RADT 103 (first year of program, end of first semester)

Person/s responsible RADT 103 Instructor

Evaluation Instrument Hands on Lab Final as a summative assessment RADT 103 (includes an unacceptable radiograph that students must correct using the appropriate technical factors)


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: Class average was a 71% Benchmark target was not met. Year Two 2015-2016: Class average was an 83% Benchmark target was met.

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The hands on final lab exam tends to be a high stress experience for the first year students that consistently yields lower scores than the didactic portion of the course. To address these results, the program will incorporate an open lab session where students could practice prior to the hands-on final. Another possibility is to incorporate more practice into the lab as time allows. Year Two 2015-2016: This year the benchmark was met. Last year the class average was 71%. This year it increased to an 83%. Next year we will incorporate allowing students to do hands on patient care in clinic the first year. Hopefully, this will help students grasp a better understanding of using the appropriate technical factors.

14

Graduated Students

Course and Timeframe Within one year of graduation

Person/s responsible Program Director

Evaluation Instrument Employer Survey as summative assessment

o Question under knowledge base: The graduate has critical thinking and problem solving skills

Benchmark Target 4.0 or higher out of a 5 point Likert scale (See Glossary)

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change

Year One 2014-2015:

Graduated Class of 2014 Radiologic Technology Education Program - Employer Survey

The graduate has critical thinking & problem solving skills.

Answer Options Response

Percent Response

Count

5 Strongly Agree 35.7% 5

4 Generally Agree 57.1% 8

3 Neutral 7.1% 1

2 Generally Disagree 0.0% 0

1 Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0

N/A 0.0% 0

answered question 14

skipped question 1

Average was 4.2 out of 5 Benchmark Target Exceeded

15

Year Two 2015-2016:

Graduated Class of 2015

Radiologic Technology Education Program - Employer Survey

The graduate has critical thinking & problem solving skills.


Percent Response

Count

5 - Strongly Agree 54.5% 6

4 - Agree 36.4% 4

3 - Neutral 9.1% 1

2 - Disagree 0.0% 0

1 - Strongly Agree 0.0% 0

N - Not Applicable 0.0% 0


skipped question 1

Average was 4.4 out of 5 Benchmark Target Exceeded

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The Program will continue to monitor.

16

Year Two 2015-2016: The Program will continue to monitor. The Employer survey that employers are

satisfied with graduate critical thinking and problem solving skills. This is a strength of the program.

Goal 4: Students will model professionalism Student Learning Outcome 7: Students will conduct themselves in an ethical and professional manner and to function effectively as a member of the healthcare team in accordance with ARRT Standards and ASRT Code of Ethics Second-Year Students

Course and Timeframe RADT 203 (second year of program, end of fifth semester)


Evaluation Instrument Clinical Bimonthly Evaluation Survey

o Question 4 Professional Ethics: Student demonstrates ethical and professional demeanor as outlined in the ASRT Code of Ethics

Benchmark Target 4.0 or higher out of a 5 point Likert scale (See glossary)

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: 4.8 Benchmark Target Exceeded Year Two 2015-2016:

4.6

Action Plan Year One 2014-2015: The program is missing results from three clinical sites. The importance of providing feedback via the Bi-Monthly Evaluation Survey will be stressed to the clinical sites. Year Two 2015-2016: Continue to monitor. To address this continuing problem of missing results, the clinic coordinator will make changes to the procedures. Students will be held responsible for getting the evaluations done within one week from being assigned

17

to the Clinic Instructor or their grade will be affected. The program will keep using www.onlineradschool.com for year three (2016-17) but may decide to change back to paper evaluations depending on the results of this assessment change.

Student Learning Outcome 8: Students will practice professionalism by attending professional development opportunities, joining professional organizations and/or reading professional journals Second-Year Students

Timeframe Data will be collected at the end of Program

Person/s responsible Program Director and/or Program Faculty

Evaluation Instrument Percentage of second year students’ attendance at a professional development opportunity and/or joining a professional organization.

Benchmark Target 80% or higher will participate in conference and/or join a professional organization

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Three-year Cycle, Assess, Analyze, and Change Year One 2014-2015: Class of 2014 17 were NMSRT members, one was an ASRT member, and 17 went to the NMSRT conference, two went to the Today in Radiology Conference 18/18 100% were involved in professional organizations and professional development opportunities

Benchmark Target Exceeded Year Two 2015-2016: Class of 2015 14 were NMSRT members, two were ASRT members, and 14 went to the NMSRT conference 14/16 88% were involved in professional organizations and professional development opportunities

Benchmark Target Exceeded Year Three: Class of 2016

10 were NMSRT members, 1 was an ASRT members, and 11 went to the NMSRT conference

18

12/16 75% were involved in professional organizations and professional development opportunities

Benchmark was not met. Class of 2017:

Action Plan Class of 2014 & 2015: No action is needed; however, to further promote professional activities, the Program will incorporate a portfolio assignment in which the students will choose a professional journal article to study. They will be required to take and pass the CE Directed Reading Quiz or write a summary after reading the article. Class of 2016: To help improve this score for future years, we now require the students to read a professional journal article with directed reading quiz or a written summary as a portfolio assignment for semester 2, 3 and 4. This practice will promote an interest in the journal article topics and encourage continuing education within the field of Radiology. Class of 2017:

Program Effectiveness Measures and Data Measure 1: Students will pass the ARRT national certification on the 1st attempt within 6 months of graduation.

Timeframe Within one year of graduation


Evaluation Instrument ARRT 1st Time Pass Rates


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Class of 2014 18 students graduated

19

17 students took the test within 6 months of graduation One student failed 94% pass rate

Benchmark Target Exceeded

Class of 2015

16 students graduated 6 student failed 63% pass rate

Benchmark Target not met. Class of 2016

Action Plan Class of 2015 Hopefully, this low score is a result of a less academically strong class. The program was informed after this group of students graduated that the registry practice tests had been leaked to students by former graduates. As a result, several of these students did not study very hard. Measures have been taken to prevent this situation in the future. Students also informed us that former graduates told them the program tests were more difficult than the registry. This also led to inadequate preparation for the ARRT exam. One student who failed was actively planning her wedding directly after graduation and a second had family emergencies; they were not focused on exam preparation. The action we are taking to recruit academically stronger students is a revision of prerequisite courses to replace Computer Literacy and Intro to Anatomy and Physiology with Chemistry and Anatomy and Physiology I. Classes are going to be restructured during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years to require more classroom and review time during the second year of the program. Latest versions of text books are being implemented.

Class of 2016 The Program will continue to monitor.

Measure 2: Students pursuing employment will be gainfully employed within 6 months of graduation



20

Evaluation Instrument Graduate Survey


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Class of 2014 18 students graduated 17 students pursued employment One continued education 100% of the students seeking employment became employed Benchmark Target Exceeded

Class of 2015

16 students graduated 15 students pursued employment Five continued education 100% of the students seeking employment became employed Benchmark Target Exceeded

Action Plan Class of 2014 The Program will continue to monitor. The program has had 100% job placement rate for the last 5+ years. Class of 2015 The Program will continue to monitor.

Measure 3: Students will complete the program within 21 months



Evaluation Instrument Program attrition/retention and graduation rates


Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Class of 2014

21

19 students selected One failed (physics) 18 graduated 18/19 = 95% retention rate Benchmark Target Exceeded

Class of 2015 19 students selected Three failed (one imaging and two physics) One withdrew for medical reasons One reentered the Program (failed physics in 2014) 16 graduated 15/19 = 79% retention rate Benchmark Target Met

Class of 2016

18 students selected 4 failed (two imaging and two physics) 2 reentered the Program (failed physics in 2015) 16 graduated 14/18 = 78% retention rate Benchmark Target Not Met

Action Plan Class of 2014 and 2015

o Reevaluate the selection process. o Add the Test of Essential Skills to the selection process. o Evaluate the tests’ validity. o Remove CS 110 and add CHEM 110G as a prerequisite. CHEM 110G is a

prerequisite To BIOL 225 and has fundamental concepts for physics and radiation biology courses.

o Require Math 120 or higher and remove AHS 116. Math 120 transfers readily to other universities and is a more rigorous course.

o Require BIOL 225, Anatomy and Physiology 1 and not BIOL 154. BIOL 225 is a more rigorous course. Increasing the standards will hopefully recruit students who are better prepared for the course work.

Class of 2016

This year we did not meet the benchmark. We are hoping that the changes in the prerequisites that we made this past year will help the retention rate in the future. The prerequisite changes had not yet been implemented for the class of 2016 but we will continue to monitor and look for improvement for the class of 2017.

22

Measure 4: Students will be satisfied with their education



Evaluation Instrument Graduate Survey

Benchmark Target Overall rating of 4.0 or higher out of a 5 point Likert scale (See Glossary)

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary) Class of 2014 18 graduates 12 responded to graduate follow up survey

Radiologic Technology Education Program Graduate Class of 2014

Please rate and comment on the OVERALL quality and your preparation as an ENTRY-LEVEL radiographer.


Percent Response

Count



3 Neutral 0.0% 0



N/A 0.0% 0

Comments: 6


skipped question 0

Survey rating was 4.9 out of 5 Benchmark Target Exceeded

23

Class of 2014

Class of 2015

Radiologic Technology Education Program Graduate Class of 2015


Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

5 - Strongly Agree 61.5% 8 4 – Agree 30.8% 4 3 – Neutral 7.7% 1 2 - Disagree 0.0% 0 1 - Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0 N - Not Applicable 0.0% 0 Comments: 5

answered question 13 skipped question 0


24


5 - Strongly Agree

4 - Agree

3 - Neutral

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

N - Not Applicable

Action Plan

Class of 2014 The Program will continue to send our graduate follow up surveys online through Survey Monkey to increase the response rate. The class of 2014 had a 67% response rate which is up from a 26% response rate from the class of 2013.

Class of 2015 The students continue to feel they are prepared for entry level radiography employment. This was the class were 6 students failed the registry. It is interesting that they still feel prepared to work. The response rate on the surveys was 81% which was even a higher return than the prior year.

Measure 5: Employers will be satisfied with the graduate’s performance



Evaluation Instrument Employer Follow up Survey

Benchmark Target Overall rating of 4.0 or higher out of a 5 point Likert scale (See Glossary)

Results and Analysis (Composite Summary)

25

Class of 2014 Radiologic Technology Education Program - Employer Survey

Please rate and comment on the overall quality of this Radiologic Technology Education program’s graduate.


Percent Response

Count



3 Neutral 0.0% 0



N/A 0.0% 0

Comments: 7


skipped question 1

Survey rating was 4.64 out of 5 Benchmark Target Exceeded Class of 2015

Radiologic Technology Education Program - Employer Survey

Please rate and comment on the overall quality of this Radiologic Technology Education program’s graduate.

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

5 - Strongly Agree 66.7% 6 4 - Agree 33.3% 3 3 - Neutral 0.0% 0 2 - Disagree 0.0% 0 1 - Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0 N - Not Applicable 0.0% 0 Comments: 7

answered question 9 skipped question 3


Action Plan Class of 2014 The Program will continue to send our employer surveys online through Survey Monkey to increase the response rate. The overall satisfaction rating for the class of 2014 was a 4.64. This response rate was 77%, an increase of 21% from the response rate for the class of 2013.

26

Class of 2015 The Program did meet this benchmark but we did notice that 3 people skipped this question. It is unclear why maybe the wording needs to be adjusted.

Possible Program Research Questions and Answers for 2015-2016 1. Do screening criteria appropriately identify students who are likely to be successful in

the program? a. Prior to program entry, what factors had an impact on program fail rate? b. Do students who take BIOL 154 have a higher failing rate than those who take

BIOL 225? c. In the screening process, will changing the bonus points for specific courses

(BIOL 226 or 227 and PHYS 211) improve program pass rate? d. How many students got extra points for CHEM 110 in the last two years? Are

there data to support having made it a prerequisite? 2. If the program looks back at the students who fail the ARRT on the first attempt, what

grades did they earn during the program? If the program raises the passing scores from a 74% to a 78%, will that eliminate any students from the program? If so, what is more important, student retention in the program or a high first attempt pass rate?

3. Does our assessment plan show that the students are improving from their first year into their second year? Analyze and report on the data collected comparing the two classes against each other.

program assessment plan and effectiveness data · several students had point deductions on question...

Documents